Updated With Alternative Endings!!"Home Is Now Behind You, The World Is Ahead" - It's The New Trailer For THE HOBBIT!!

A picture is worth a thousand words... this latest trailer for THE HOBBIT looks to be worth a lot more than that. Peter Jackson appears to have done it again, as AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY is giving off some epic vibes.

See for yourself...

I'd also recommend watching it in full HD on iTunes to see it in all of its glory.

* * * * * * * * * *

UPDATE: The above isn't the only way to watch the new trailer. While that cut features an ending full of dwarves, there are actually four alternative endings you can choose from, creating your own version of the trailer over at THE HOBBIT official page. They're just a few brief moments after the title card, but extra footage is extra footage.

So it looks like a soap opera from the '70s instead of an actual film. But hey, it's brand new eyeball fucking resolution! So what if the sets all resemble day-glo papier-mache from a carnival dark ride!
Yeah yeah, I know. I'll be seeing it anyway.

Yeah, that shot of the first dwarves arriving at Bag End felt particularly green-screeny, and the Galadriel stuff already seems to feel tacked on, like "look here's Cate Blanchett playing that character again for no reason!"
But so much else looks spot on. Captures the tone of the earlier films, with a lighter more comedic touch, which is utterly appropriate. Bilbo's casting is perfect. I think Gollum looks as great as ever. This is going to make an ocean full of money. Audiences are going to love Bilbo and be right there with him, stumbling through this crazy adventure. Still unsure about the three film bit, but optimistic.
Speaking of which, I'm hoping this indeed is just a trailer for ONLY the first film; it's looking like this first installment is going to take us up to the escape from the Wargs after the Misty Mountains stretch. Decent ending. Second film opens with Beorn? Christ, I'm a geek.

ORIGINAL FILM have specialized in making original films, like remakes and reboots such as Prom Night, 21 Jump Street, Total Recall and the forthcoming Highlander, not to mention six Fast and the Furious movies, three I Know What You Did's, two XXX's (a third on the way), three The Skulls' and three Cruel Intentions'.

The first trailer left me a bit "meh" and all this talk about expanding the story into a trilogy, the 48fps debate and the excessive use of cgi and green screen didn't bode well.
but, blimey, gov.
...
this is one impressive trailer and i am aching so badly to get to middle earth again.
I still have faith in Peter and his crew so, yeah, roll on December.

Tell me that doesn't look like made for tv. Too much green screen = lazy film making. Gollum looks more like a toon than he did 10 years ago. Jackson is aiming squarely for 8 - 14 year olds. This is Phantom Menace all over again.

He was in that art banner released months ago, the one that showed many scenes from the movie.
They've gotta get to the spiders in this movie so that Bilbo has an arc. He goes from goofy Hobbit out of his element to a hero by the end, killing monsters (the spiders) and saving the Dwarves.

I read that they didn't use Bigatures this time around and everything's digital, which is really disappointing to me - the combination of actual outdoor locations, outstanding models and sets, and digital effects is what makes LOTR so well done.
All digital=Star Wars prequels. It just doesn't feel right.
(Also, whoever said that Gollum seems more cartoony is right - but maybe that's because he still has the ring and hasn't really devolved into the creepy nutjob without it)
(Double also: judenw, Cate Blanchett looks amazing in that getup and you are definitely not the only one who would like do it elfystyle with her)

...admitted, I thought it was a bit more whimsical compared to what I was expecting (deliberately so, I imagine, since the second film now has that damn ominous subtitle 'The Desolation of Smaug'), but I really liked it.
And the line starts behind me, judenw.

An adaptation with the feel of LotR is going to be difficult. The LotR story wasnt in Tolkein's head when he wrote the Hobbit and he did go back and tweak the manuscript and backstory to connect them. I always saw the dwarves as kind of bumbling and I hope PJ keeps the strong flavor of a country tale writ large. There are definately epic parts of the tale, but I dont want it to come across like the South Park episode where the kids get the ninja weapons and are all animated as buffed out samurai/ninja warriors.
If anyone can do it, its PJ.

Exactly what I was going to say. Gollum is younger, but more to the point since hes been under the mountain for more than 500 years, the ring has not abandoned him and he has not yet crossed half the world, suffering depredation and torture in search of his Precious.

......so good. My eyeballs are dancing like sugar plums in my head. My eyeballs will fill this film completely and utterly. At the first showing, my eyeballs will expand to fill the screening room, much to the dismay of my fellow theater-goers, as they realize (too late) that, yes, this is really happening. Their lives are being forever changed by the pointless tragedy of my eyeballs enveloping all forms of life which found themselves unequal to the task of fleeing my two rapidly expanding beautiful brown orbs before they were entrapped by those self-same implausibly swollen, ponderous globes of hawk-like acuity.
Oooohh, yeaahhhh...."

Because:
I always pictured Gollum interaction with Bilbo as a much darker, scarier, morbidly funny, hidden in the shadows type of affair.
and what is with that goblin landing on them at the end? That better not be the goblin king.
If they're going to go with the every scene needs a laugh formula it appears they indeed are going for, this film is going to be the most disappointing film of the year.

this won't win Jacko his second batch of oscars - not by a longshot; it stressed the Academy to hand out the golden statuettes to a fantasy flick last time round. Still wish he would have stuck to the text and made one big epic movie, but i'm sure wiser minds prevailed. Still can't believe it's been almost 10 years since the last trip to middle earth - The worlds in such a hurry.

He's morbidly obese.
And he has a crown.
That's the one thing I didn't like about the trailer- the joke in the credits.
But at least that shows the film has a sense of humor in line with the "fun" inherent in the story; something that most talkbackers have decried the upcoming films for ignoring.

Beorn will not be in the first movie. If you go to the official site (www.thehobbit.com) they've changed the scroll since changing it into three movies. The last scene on the scroll is now the dwarves getting rescued by the Eagles.

Gollum looks the same to me, except I prefer a darker tone, hiding in the shadows (like in the book).
I didn't notice it being to greenie, visuals looked great to me, the feel quite the same as LOTR.
............................................................
MY big complaint is too much humor and lighter tone, than the LOTR trailers, hopefully this doesn't carry over into the films.
I believe it should match the seriousness of LOTR, but with a touch more humor, after all we have all these dwarfs together.
..........................................................
I hope Galadriel has a bigger part than what is shown in trailer, because Kate rocks and I would love to see more of her.

I wasn't a fan of the LOTR trilogy. Yeah, boo me and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. It's okay, I'm used to it. Anyways, I love the books and the cartoon of The Hobbit so I had mixed feelings about this. I mean, on the one hand, it has to employ some of what I loved about the cartoon/books. It has Martin Freeman. It has benedict Cumberbatch involved in TWO capacities. I'm not worried about the acting of anyone in these films. However...
... it is directed by the same guy who directed King Kong and the LOTR trilogy , of which I (I'm all too reminded many others disagree) see as a negative. I liked The Frighteners far more than any of his later movies. I'm already not looking forward to long dramatic pauses with background music every 5 minutes to imply importance or feeling. Or feeling the actual length of the journey because it feels like about 30% could have been edited out.
I was looking forward to Del Toro much more. There are other directors I would have liked to see take a crack at it as well on a wishlist, like Gilliam (not likely) or let Pixar take a crack it it. Those are wishes, not likely or even probably possible, but still.
Yeah, it is selfish as someone who didn't like the three LOTR movies to say "Make changes!" but I still think we all would have been better off, not just me.
What's weird is I wouldn't mind Jackson doing a movie set of The Dark Rises sequence of books by Susan Cooper. That way he could make three films to cover all the books OR make shorter movies of each book because they aren't really long enough to warrant 3 hours a book. But, I'd also rather have the directors I previously mentioned before him...I just wouldn't mind him. I'd rather have Jackson do a new original project.

Ah cool! So that's how they'll make it appear that Gandalf "made the sun rise" and turn the Trolls into stone!
He'll use his same trick from the Bridge of Khazad-Dum and split the boulder he's standing on in half, thus spilling sunlight into the glen which otherwise would have taken a bit longer to show.

I don't think Peter Jackson has much imagination on how to shoot a scene creatively. His set-ups feel like they're for television. And anyone who mentions sweeping vistas and flyovers can STFU immediately, that is not creativity it's the opposite.
But yeah, the scene with Gollum shouldn't be medium two shots and close-ups where they're both easily seen. Fucking dull. It reminds me of how incredibly pedestrian he shot the scene with Shelob in LOTR. It's just a fight with a big CGI spider in his movie. Almost as though it was more about showing what WETA could accomplish. The scene in the book has a nightmare/dream feel to it and I never felt like Samwise EVER got a truly good look at her.

That's funny. I originally thought that's where they'd end the first movie, the rescue by the Eagles.
But then I thought it made more sense to end on a cliffhanger with the fight with the spiders and then getting captured by the Elves. Interesting that they took Beorn off the scroll... Hmmm....

New character moments to replace the Goblin King gag at the end of this trailer, moments with Gollum, Gandalf, Bilbo opening the contract, Elrond naming Sting, etc etc...
It lets you "make your own ending to the trailer".

SPOILERS
Looks like the banner erased the images of Beorn and the Company floating down river in barrels. I guess all that will be in the second movie, along with the spider-attack.
The banner now ends with the warg escape up the trees and eagle rescue.

Like the Star Wars trilogy, the first two LOTR movies (Fellowship/Two Towers) are masterpiece's while the third (Return of the King/Jedi) is sloppy. Now Jackson is making a prequel trilogy out of a very thin book that didn't need to be more than one movie. There is NO REASON that Jackson couldn't have done The Hobbit in 3 to 3 1/2 hours. He's simply doing this to milk it as much as he can after The Lovely Bones fucking tanked and King Kong dropped ape shit everywhere.
FACT!!!

http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/thehobbit/app/thcc_thescroll.jpg
I too thought them getting captured by the elves or escaping in the barrels would have been the perfect ending to the first movie. My concern with where it ends now is that it's not far enough into the story. You pretty much have the trolls, Rivendell, the Misty Mountains/Gollum, and the warg attack. But from this new trailer maybe they've got a lot of stuff with Dol Goldur and the Misty Mountains have been expanded a lot more. It think it will be awesome. And, d.vader, I read on theonering.net that the actor playing Beorn is one of the people who got asked to come back for more filming, so we're probably getting a lot more Beorn now than we would have.

The tone of this seems way off, too light and jocular, and bilbo did not run off from bag-end delighted at the thought of having an adventure. Freeman is a very bad choice for Bilbo, too young and comedic.

Something about this feels like Time Bandits to me, like it's mix of humor with creative fantasy visuals.
Maybe it's better if Jackson takes a different approach here, like having more fun instead of being so serious all the time.

Do you want something light-hearted like the children's book that is The Hobbit? Or do you want something more serious and in line with the previous movies?
Or do you think a combination of both is the best idea? Because I tell you, NO ONE here can agree what is the best approach. Half the people in here act pissed off that this is "epic" and not the small, light-hearted kids story. And now we've got people complaining about the light-hearted tone and some of the jokes.
Sheesh.

( someone had to quote it :) )
The extra ten years of experience and technology for moulding New Zealand into Middle Earth really shows ... it looks dazzling and the characters look as iconic as they should.
It's a given that they'll get my dollars, so I'm just enjoying the ride leading up to it.

The first trailer was quite good but this is VERY disheartening. Its the Star Wars prequels all over again. Ridiculous dialog, wrong tone. This will destroy Jackson's rep just like the SW prequels did to Lucas.

Not sure I was clear. I meant that it looks like a kids film, silly and light hearted whilst the book, while written for children, is not really like that. It's not war and peace, but it is serious in a way that really doesn't come through in this admittedly short trailer. I think Jackson just doesn't really understand the source material. I would say the same about his adaptation of LOTR. Some things he just didn't get, and they look a bit dated. I would like an epic film, but not an epic kids film.

the trailer does an absolutely horrible job at conferring what the movie is actually about, besides dudes going on an adventure... to somewhere.. because there is some darkness in the world.
Um.. ok.
As opposed to LoTR: Gotta journey to a volcano to destroy a ring to kill the big bad. Pretty easy premise to wrap your head around. Hobbit.. not so much.

The look of the dwarves is rather wrong. They are vagabonds, or else they made their living working iron for money. They have been disposessed of all they held dear, but here thay all look rather clean and polished, just wrong. I wish this had been made in a time when even a book for kids could be taken seriously. Books for kids from the time the hobbit was written were very different from the tripe that is manufactured for kids these days. The silliness of the book isn't something that will really come across very well in film, because silly scenarios are very hard to do without looking simply stupid. I was really chuffed when I heard del Toro was going to direct this, but really lost a lot of interest when he dropped out.

I agree this looks a little too much 'made-for-TV' from Jackson. The trailer's poorly paced, and you've got to wonder whether the split to 3 movies has messed up the flow of the first. At least 45 minutes has been cut and moved to the 2nd film. The Fellowship of the Ring trailer is a thousand times better! On the positives, Martin Freeman seems PERFECT as Bilbo, and Goblin Town looks exactly as it should. People have been visualizing Goblin Town for years and now it's here, for real!

Based on some images, I think Bifur, the one with the axe-blade embedded in his head, is going to have a few, ah, "moments" and that maybe he'll be a bit slow to the uptake, if you get me, as a result of his injury. Played up for laughs, I'm sure.
I base this on two moments:
1. At :37 seconds, we see a group of Dwarves at the dinner table listening to Thorin. All stare at the same point offscreen, blinking or gulping or straining to listen- all *moving*. Bifur, on the left side of the screen, however, seems to be staring down at his plate. His eyeline doesn't match the others, and not only that, he seems to be frozen. He's completely still, statuesque, as if the injury to his brain gives him these stuck in the moment, ah, moments.
2. At 2:00, Bofur and Kili seem to be laughing hysterically at a joke while Bofur sits on the right side of frame looking at them both, not comprehending what they're laughing at, as he sits frozen with a handful of vegetables above a fire.
He doesn't appear frozen in this moment as his eyes look around, but he definitely appears to not get the joke.
3. At 2:02, the Dwarves are all seen laughing around the table with Gandalf. All the dwarves, that is, except for Bofur, who appears to be moving and swaying like a Chuck E Cheese robot. Not smiling either, I might add.

There's a big difference: this movie is based off of first-rate source material, while Menace was entirely predicated on a story that Lucas had to make up himself (which was beyond his skill level). Unless Jackson SEVERELY fucks up, or his filmmaking skills have entirely deserted him in he last three years, this is still going to be a good film. If he's at his Fellowship of the Ring best, it will be a GREAT film.

The beginning where Gandalf proclaims "THE DWARVES ARE DETERMINED TO RECLAIM THEIR HOMELAND!"
Or the moment when Gandalf says he's found the 14th member that Thorin wanted for the journey? And the part when Gandalf explains Hobbits can get into places without being seen?
Or the moment when Thorin, at the table, declares "We must seize this chance to TAKE BACK EREBOR!"
I guess all those moments eluded you so you didn't get anything other than a sense that they're going on an "adventure... somewhere..."

Trailers do NOTHING to excite any but the choir.
So far I don't see anythign that doesn't look like excised footage from LOTR, and I'm not buyin some of the dwarf designs, though that's just me.
That said, am glad it's The Hobbit: a more "jovial" tone, Will give kids a chance to enjoy a really well-shot, fun movie experience. And yes, Im sure I'll take my daughters to see it, and will probably enjoy it.

So before they watch it they already have a cynical jaded point of view and are looking to hate on it. That's fine. It doesn't bother me. It's what I think that matters the most because I like everyone else lives inside my brain.

You do understand that some of the best "children's" movies can also appeal well to adults, right? Raiders, ESB even Jackson's FotR to name a few. This looks catered exclusively for kiddies because that's (apparently) where the most moolah is. And if you've read The Hobbit you'll know it's not a typical children's book. chapters like riddles in the dark - scary shit. This looks like the polar opposite of scary.

People will;
Go see it in the cinema, probably once because of the high prices and generally shit experience.
Torrent a shitty CAM version a couple of weeks later.
Torrent a R5 or screener a little later.
Torrent a DVD/Blu rip months later.
Buy the extended edition on Blu Ray late 2013, IF they aren't sick of seeing it by then.
Of course they could get around steps 2-4 by just releasing the extended edition on Blu as soon as it is done in the theatre, ensuring they make more money from step 5. The market has changed and business models need to change too. People hate waiting months and months for a release, and they can't afford to double dip either.
Also, cinema chains, make more money from step 1 by kicking out the little bastards, the twats on phones and reduce your prices. Thank you!

I'm going to bet the lot of you saying that haven't a clue what goes into a visual effects shot. If you've seen any snippet of the behind the scenes stuff, a lot of the foreground elements are practical sets. There are a lot of flying camera rigs, and that might be what you've decided is "green screeny", but I reckon Jackson is filming this way to take advantage of the 3D aspect. If any of it looks the way Spielberg's chase scenes in Tintin did because of the moving camera, then I will gladly take that over the "realism" of boring boring LOTR.

So, you expect large corporations that run these theaters to not only eliminate a large portion of their paying audience, especially during matinee times, but also reduce prices and reduce any incentive for people to go back and see a movie in the theater a second time, and expect them to be *more* profitable?
Whatever online fuckwit business school you got your degree from, man, I hope you ask for your money back.

Whomever said that some people want the big sweeping epic, and some people think that this should be a kiddie film, was right on. Now we got both camps bitching and it's annoying to hear.
Also, when will you retards learn? When complex CGI is shown this early in the preview process, IT"S USUALLY NOT DONE.
How many movies have we been through that same exact point before on? Goddamn some of the lives you lead must be painfully depressing.

with the haunting melody of the Dwarves' Misty Mountain song. That's enough for me to have confidence in Jackson's ability to balance humor and pathos.
Everything else is just icing on the cake.
I'll be first in line to see this one.

...I'm down.
Phantom Menace comparisons? Please. What did you want? Dark, end of the world stuff? Been there, done that, enjoyed the shit out of it.
I'm well up for a lighter take on the material, and it isn't all going to be gags.
Only worry is that we get Martin Freeman, and not Bilbo. There were some nice Bilbo-isms in there, but my homeland is famous for producing actors that play themselves.
I refer the jury to exhibits Sean Connery, Michael Caine and Danny Dyer. Don't look Danny in the eye tho'. He's well 'ard.

No, I expect them to improve the cinema experience by policing the place to stop groups of 12 year olds talking all the way through and to stop people talking on their phone. I once watched a movie where someone behind me talked on the phone practically from start to finish. I've been to LOADS of movies where a group of kids is there to just throw popcorn at each other and spoil it for the rest of the people in there. I hardly ever go to the cinema now and I used to love it. Whenever I do go its mostly empty apart from the groups of people I was just talking about. I would to A LOT more often if they sorted it out and I am sure many more people would too.
And the price is ridiculous, surely you agree with that? I'm don't know where you live but here in the UK it's an expensive couple of hours going to watch a movie. I wanted to watch Avengers a 2nd time but couldn't justify the price for me and my son to go back. I bet they get far fewer repeat viewings now the prices are so high. There's a recession on, nobody has any money. Releasing the Blu Ray shortly after its done in theatres won't discourage repeat viewings, if that's what you meant. Waiting months and months DOES encourage piracy though.

Agree w/ angry kitty, first trailer had a more ominous tone which I liked. I have no doubt these will be great though- nothing wrong with levity added in. It was done well in LoTR through moments like Gandalf hitting his head in Bilbo's house.
I do hope Smaug is utterly terrifying. I was very excited for Shelob and felt that entire scene was just terrible. The dragon better be fucking terrifying.

Well I said "exclusively kiddie" which was using your own words from a previous post. This movie doesn't look like its made just for kids, which is what that implies. Radagast is a character who was more concerned and interested in birds and animals rather than people and the ways and politics of the world. Peter Jackson has chosen to play that up to differentiate Radagast from the other wizards like Saruman who was more interested in knowledge and power and Gandalf who was more interested in people and living and interacting with them.
Giving Radagast an entourage of animals makes sense to me, so the idea of him traveling by animal (large bunnies in a fantasy world already populated by large wolves and large elephants) doesn't seem that far-fetched. Sure, kids may like it, but that's not to suggest adults will hate it or have an aversion to it.
And please note I'm not calling names or anything, I just disagree with that idea that this seems to have been made only for kids.

Yeah, I get that, and appreciate your point. My point was that the comparison to Lucas' Prequels is unjust, as those are poorly WRITTEN, poorly DIRECTED uninspired pieces of commercilIZED crap parading in the guise of "targeted for kids".
I don't see that in The Hobbit; that said there's nothing wrong with a film being "lighthearted," after works like Harry Potter (fantastic) etc, kids could use some more lightheartedness, god knows they're growing up faster ie more cynical than generations before them. If The Hobbit provides a sense of wonder for a new generation, fantastic. Hopefully it'll get more kids to READ the Hobiit, becuase as much as I enjoyed Rowlings Potter, Tolkien, even The Hobbit, is far more challlenging.

Yo! I don't rap about bitches and hoes, I rap about <BR>witches and trolls
<BR>Just passing on the words of the Elven king,
<BR>Wisdom to all
<BR>Bilbo! Don't wear the ring!
<BR>Bilbo, don't wear the ring!
<BR>The magical bling bling
<BR>You'll never be the Lord of the Rings!

Why wouldn't it discourage repeat viewings in the theater?
If there's a market for viewing the movie without paying the exorbitant movie theater prices very shortly after it releases to theaters (which is the implication that the tendency towards piracy makes), then why wouldn't it be shrunk by an official release of the movie on blu-ray immediately thereafter? The demand might not be as significant as I think, but it's almost certainly more
Anyways, the implication in your first post was that they banned from the theaters. As annoying as I find those people as well, and the lack of policing around it, the fact of the matter remains that geeks like us who love the theater experience for what it is and love movies for what they are, are in the minority of moviegoers. Most of them don't give two shits about the experience, I agree, but kicking them all out of theaters is taking a huge amount of the market away, and no amount of repeat viewings by us would make that difference up early.
The sad fact of the matter is movie going has proven to be more price inelastic than we would like to think. Until we vote with our wallets, and not our mouths, movie theaters right now have very little reason to change. They make very good margins on pretty much everything they sell, and more than market share or anything else, that's what the execs are looking at, and that's what'll determine distribution strategies in the future.
Look, I'd have liked a blu ray to see the Avengers right after the 2nd time in the theater. But I didn't get it, so I turned to crappy rips for a while, and I didn't go back to the theater as a result. I can sure as shit guarantee you there's no way in hell I would've gone back if I could've bought a legit copy two weeks (or months) after the initial release.
Shit, if they did that with movies, there are many which I wouldn't go to at all, and just wait for the sooner blu ray. The reviewing cost there would be zilch, while the re-viewing cost at a theater would still be the insane amount that it is now.
I apologize for the harsh tone of my earlier post; I was getting fed up with the other responses I was seeing on this talkback which had nothing to do with you. Clearly on your reply you displayed a level-headedness and sense of rationality that most talkbackers find anathema to their existence, and for that, my fault.

The beginning where Gandalf proclaims "THE DWARVES ARE DETERMINED TO RECLAIM THEIR HOMELAND!"
Or the moment when Gandalf says he's found the 14th member that Thorin wanted for the journey? And the part when Gandalf explains Hobbits can get into places without being seen?
Or the moment when Thorin, at the table, declares "We must seize this chance to TAKE BACK EREBOR!"
I guess all those moments eluded you so you didn't get anything other than a sense that they're going on an "adventure... somewhere..."
--------
Its not that they eluded me.. its that I don't really have a context within which to place them. The trailer is slanted to some nutjob with a dog-eared copy of the book in his backpocket.
Erebor? Really? A non-fan is expected to know that?
14 members just makes me think 13 is a real unlucky number.
So if the purpose of the movie is that an evil has setup shop in the dwarf caves and our plucky heroes are off to dispose of it(but didn't they do that in the first film?), um.. say that in a way that someone who isn't familiar with the universe would understand it.

You're right. I already miss most of the movies I want to see in the cinema because of the shitty experience of it all and I'd probably give the few things I do see a miss if I could pick up the Blu Ray 6 weeks after later. It'd hurt the cinema industry. But it would surely help DVD/Blu Ray sales. In that gap between a movie leaving the cinema and the DVD release the only way to see it is illegal downloading and by the time you can buy it most people have already seen a pirate copy. I wonder how many people would buy it instead of downloading if it was available legally.
I do think there is a huge amount of custom being lost through lack of policing, probably more than they are gaining by leaving the idiots to do whatever they want. Where I live the local screens are almost full on the opening weekend of a big movie. If you go any time after that weekend they are almost empty and most people in there are the idiots who spoil the experience. That looks to me like the die hard fans are going opening weekend and the general movie going public are giving it a miss altogether. I think this has to be either the price, the fact they know some dick will spoil the movie or a combination of both.

"14 members just makes me think 13 is a real unlucky number. "
Which I believe is precisely the reason Thorin wanted Gandalf to find a 14th person, bc 13 was unlucky. So nice work!
"So if the purpose of the movie is that an evil has setup shop in the dwarf caves and our plucky heroes are off to dispose of it"
Yeah you got that too, good! So you may not know what Erebor is, but I doubt you( or others unfamiliar with LOTR) knew what Middle-Earth was in the first trailers for FOTR. Or what Sauron was, or Mordor for that matter.
They didn't come right out and say that they're reclaiming their land from a dragon. But they did show you a map when speaking of their specific place and show a dragon above it. They did imply it was dangerous. They did say the dwarves needed to reclaim their homeland, and that's about the story in a nutshell.
Dwarves want to reclaim land and need Bilbo to help. All together they go on an adventure. I don't think they needed to get into details specifically in just this first real trailer, but if they did, I don't think it would have hurt.
But it seems like you have figured out the basic premise regardless.

That way there is more room for me in the theater and I don't have to be surrounded by a bunch of whining fuck-wits that complain about a movie when you know damned well they will be there on opening day.
Hypocritical ballsacks, the lot of you.

.......I mean, its rife everywhere on this site? And what is more amazing is that no doubt some of you deal the same shit on other talkbacks!!
Its not good at all, but what do you really expect?
Anyway. Trailer looks alright, and this time I don't have to trek halfway across bloody England to make it to a cinema (there's a Vue, in my town now!! Ten minutes from me!!).

GOT is a lavishly intricate ADULT drama, that has an appropriately limited dose of sfx. It is a drama that plays with the hint of fantasy. Sure you’ve got dragons, direwolves and shadow beasts, but you’ve also got sex, backstabbing (literally) and intrigue. The characters could easily be dropped into any time, place and there stories would be just as gripping.
The Hobbit on the other hand, is a richly layered FANTASY, with clear distinction of good vs. evil. The characters and their stories live and breathe in Middle Earth, and wouldn’t exist as readily in any other setting. Middle Earth itself is a character, and the fantasy elements are crucial to the story.
It’s not a fair comparison.

I knew there would be an asshat or two in here stirring shit up, but the sheer amount of fuckery is startling, even for AICN.
I know what your deal is, though. It's the same with all the dumbest talkbackers. You want to be the first to have called it if a movie sucks. You'll scream and yell about ephemeral, miniscule shit with the hope that if the movie sucks, you'll be able to cash in your talkback cred and be a minor online celebrity (at AICN) for a day. And if the movie is awesome? Why, you'll just fuck off and come back under a new nickname in order to set your sights on the next high profile target. Sooner or later you'll be right, and then -- look out world!
Seriously, just step back and look at your aspirations for a moment. See anything wrong?
This trailer looks fantastic, for what it's worth. Does this mean the movie will conquer all? No. Not at all. However, why prepare for its failure when it's so much more fun to actually have something to look forward to, which this trailer actually seems to promise?
Then again, look who I'm talking to here -- the worst of the forum bottom feeders.

Still though, I think this looks good. It captures the feel of the LOTR films and doesn't feel too advanced like the SW prequels did compared to the OT, or how Prometheus felt a little too clean and high tech compared to Alien.
Anyways, it isn't that it feels too green screeny to me, but that the colors and grading of the image seems to be a bit more exaggerated and storybook in their look. That might work just fine for The Hobbit though. From this trailer it also feels like they filmed more on sets than in as many real locations like LOTR. So I guess there would be some green screens for digitally composited set extensions and all that stuff.
Gollum looked fine to me. He might seem a bit dated to some because let's face it, we were introduced to him a decade ago. Even if he is done with more detail and realism for these films, the fact remains that we first saw him as state of the art a decade ago. That is bound to make us feel a bit less blown away by his appearance now.

Wow, that trailer was great to see... Lots of cool images and promises of epic action.
If I'm being totally honest I would say that I preferred the first trailer. The many comments about this looking a bit green screen.. There is some truth in that. From the trailer the visuals don't look to have quite such a motion picture patina as LOTR - just a wee bit shinier and more artificial looking to my eyes. But that may not translate to the finished film after final grading, etc is complete.
I am also rather worried that the goblin seen in close shot sword fighting bilbo is all cg. The orcs and uruks in close shot in LOTR were beautiful practical make up jobs and that added a lot of grounding to the film. Just hope the hobbit doesn't feel too toon like.
Still 95percent positive and 5percent worried is a good equation for a trailer to achieve!

I think you don't understand what some people think about this film. I don't think anyone criticising this film is hoping, or thinking, it will fail. I think that people who have read the book and understood it and its context were expecting something slightly more sophisticated from someone who is supposed to "get" the literature upon which the film is based. Tolkien dealt with great themes and ideas in his works, even if they aren't apparent to most of the people who read them or watch the adaptations. Tolkien was a man of immense learning and scholarly discipline, and it was this that enabled him to write a story for his kids. if someone is going to make a film based upon his writings then it would only be fitting that this be understood. I have loved this book since I was seven years old(nearly thirty years ago) and it is painful to look at and watch an adaptation that falls so far short of what could be. Even though it is a book meant for kids it is still a serious work of literature, and unfortunately, this is what peter jackson, in my opinion, has missed, and indeed missed when adapting LOTR for the big screen.

I detest Apple and their environmental-unsound , cult of control-freak fascism. Can we have this somewhere else? Even YouTube (slightly less fascistic).
I click on 1080p download...fuck all happens. Apple cunts can fuck themselves sideways with a shitty stick.

been a while since i read the hobbit.. but weren't the 3 big dudes that try and cook bilbo Ogres who can actually speak?? It looks like Jackson has just used the cave trolls who don't talk for the 3 Ogres that turn into stone when the sun comes up

as he mostly falls foul of. That was my biggest fear with him being cast (not a fan anyway but that goes along with not being a fan of samey actors, especially samey in the way that they are the same off camera). I thought because of the weight of this work and the already huge fan base he might have put more effort into a performance that wasn't like himself but doesn't appear that way from his scenes in the trailer.

My biggest pet peeve in the abundance of CGI effects these days is spotting them easily. When they stick out in just short clips during a trailer it doesn't bode well for a whole movie. Personally, it just takes me out of a movie. One of the things I loved about LOTR and that made it more real and believable for me was that they used so much tangible stuff like sets and costumes/make-up etc. (like the Urak-Hai who looked awesome), they used CGI as well but it going by the two trailers so far and the behind the scenes production videos (yes granted that isn't a whole movie) it looks like they have gone the opposite direction this time and that could be to their detriment but it will remain the be seen. Maybe they did this for time or budget constraints or maybe it was simply laziness but I'm not sold on some of the cartoonish shots in the trailer; very disappointed and with the advancement in effects since the LOTR movies I don't why they can't look any better than Legolas being picked up onto an animal during battle and sliding/surfing around on it.

It looks like the goblins are cgi this time, maybe the differentiate them from the other ones in LOTR. That one he's fighting doesn't seem to have correct human proportion, shorter legs/longer arms and shorter in stature than a human/than the orcs were in LOTR.. maybe that's why they went the cgi rout..?

The moment when Thorin pumps his fist and snarls, "We will seize this chance to TAKE BACK EREBOR!" got me feeling it.
Damn, I actually really dug that.
The actor playing Thorin seems to have grabbed the core of this classic warrior-leader by the throat. Excellent job by him!
As for Bilbo Baggins, I don't have the misgivings others have described about Martin Freeman. I think he delivers an entertaining, straight-forward, fish-out-of-water take on Bilbo. And that's just from the trailer.
Overall, I'm very happy with what we're seeing.

To make a review until they see the whole fucking movie. *whiny voice* "It looks tooo cartoony" , well waaah. Tough shit, you didn't make the movie. To claim that it takes you out of the movie, again wait till it's done so you can view it as a cohesive whole. All of you so called "Tolkien Scholars" who are complaining, why don't you scan a picture of your "Official Expert on everything Tolkien" certificate so your points are validated. Jeez people, so judgmental on something that they haven't even seen.
This movie looks bloody awesome by the way!

The first two are amongst my favorite movies of all time. But this trailer...i'm baffled. Truly baffled. The CG looks more artificial than it did ten years ago. Why? There was an almost seamless integration between CG and models and real practical sets. Now it just looks shiny and well lit and so obviously made on computers. The dwarf prosthetics just look...off. The wigs look too clean and artificial. I mean Thorin's hair is shampooed and blow dried. What gives? When Gollum says to Bilbo he'll eat him, why does it come off funny? Why is Martin Freeman so wooden and unbelievable? Does he always act like this? And before people start shouting "troll" let me say I was really looking forward to this. I'm devastated this looks so half-assed and played for cheap laughs.

Wrong.
People have been bitching from day one when they found out PJ was doing The Hobbit. They whined about his sensibilities being wrong and that LOTR was too dark and that the Hobbit is much more of a lighthearted, child-friendly, twee affair and not at all suited to PJ's aesthetics.
Well, by the looks of the material so far, PJ has captured the EXACT right tone for this. And guess what? Now people like you are bitching that PJ has overlooked the deep, profound, embedded themes of this Great Classic Of Literature.
You can't have it both ways -- even if you are a talkbacker.

This looks, dare I say it, absolutely terrible! Between Freeman's acting or lack thereof and Gollum's lack of resemblance to Gollum in the novel, this is looking like the biggest disappointment since Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull.

*Gollum's lack of resemblance to Gollum in the novel*
Are you being serious?
From wikipedia:
In the first edition of The Hobbit Tolkien made no reference to Gollum's size, leading several illustrators to portray him as being very large. Tolkien realized the omission, and clarified in later editions that he was of average Hobbit size. The Lord of the Rings characterizes him as slightly larger than Sam.
Tolkien describes Gollum as either dark, bone-white or sallow (pale yellow); at one point the Men of Ithilien mistake his silhouette (seen from a distance) for a tailless black squirrel. In a manuscript written to guide illustrators to the appearance of his characters, Tolkien explained this by saying that Gollum had pale skin, but wore dark clothes and was often seen in poor light. The Hobbit states he has pockets, in which he keeps a tooth-sharpening-rock, goblin teeth, wet shells, and a scrap of bat wing.
The Hobbit describes him as thin, with only six teeth sharpened into points. Comparing him to Shelob, one of the Orcs describes him as "rather like a spider himself, or perhaps like a starved frog."
Gollum is described as "a small slimy creature" (in The Hobbit), and emaciated and gaunt, but possessing a vicious, wiry strength.

Younger and hasnt spent decades searching for precious and being tortured in mordor.
As for the tone, the hobbit is a childrens book, so it is appropriate. Del Toro's would have been much more cartoonish.
Dont fuckin doubt jackson, his worst sperm know more about middle earth than anyone else alive.

Im talking Martin not Morgan.
moonlightdrive, I do agree that Martin Freeman plays a similar character every role (actually so does Morgan Freeman too come to think of it!)... but I quite like his regular Joe style. Plus hes one of those actors you can see *thinking* so he makes a very good connector to the audience, and is quite convincing at playing someone who seems out of his depth.
Im thinking Gandalf will be the Sherlock to his Watson!

You know, as in NOT INSIDE?
Come up for air every now and again. The large, warm, round object in the sky is the SUN. That blue stuff surrounding it is the SKY. Those large non-moving green haired monsters are ENTS...er...TREES.
For heaven's sake have you forgotten what real stuff looks like? It all looks CG to you, doesn't it?
Search your feelings. You know this is going to be epically good. You know that you are probably going to cry at the end of the third movie when you realize that it's all done and there won't be any more (hell, I know I will). This is pretty much the best thing coming down the pike cinematically. And you choose to shit on it before you see it.
You have allowed your inner child to die for no good reason other than to appear to be a hipster to people who don't know you or care about you. I suspect that your life is ruled by negativity and that you find your life to be one that lacks the joy you desire.
It's not too late. Resuscitate your inner child. Live for wonder and expectation instead of sarcasm and negativity. And return to that kid who saw that one great movie all those years ago that made you dream of the magic in the theater. Get back your hope.

Your treatise on the minor celebrity of the aicn naysayer may be the quote of the decade. Well done sir, you absolutely nailed the proto-intellectual wannabe desires of the average aicn expert in a way which I have been unable.<p>
Again, I say, well done.....

Exactly right. PJ and crew incorporated much of the wording from the book right into the dialog. If they had every scene in the book done, they would have to have made six movies instead of three for LOTR , maybe even nine. Jackson and crew covered the themes very well, and it's apparent even through subtlety which a movie can do in visuals without having to spell it all out like a documentary. Like the first 15 hobbiton minutes of FOTR you get an intro in the hobbit people crammed with all kinds of detail. The actors weren't Tolkien fans or scholars but Jackson and his team read over his materials several times while Lucas finally crammed up a crappy script for TPM. Hardly the time he had to "borrow" ideas from LOTR, lensman and japanese movies in the couple of years he wrote the script for Star Wars. Vader is very much a Ringwraith and a former powerful warrior. Death Star is fortressed Mordor and the exhaust port is hard to reach crack of Doom. Lucas' great original idea was the trench racing because he was a wannabe desert racer in Modesto. ROTK like Return of the Jedi? What nonsense, only the one of three movies to win the most oscars in the all time history of movies. Take that electric prod to the butt, ewok-brains.

And I have a feeling when we're at 2014, I'll be saying, these Hobbit films are good, but they didn't need to be 3 films. There'll either be a lot of padding, or a major case of blueballs.
2 films was the perfect idea. Each at 2 and a half to 3 hours. Perfect. Quality over quantity, please. King Kong was all quantity and thus it was a mix of great scenes and absolute shit.